The bar on over-signing may show some increase in competitiveness.

(05-30-2017 09:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-30-2017 05:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-29-2017 04:05 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(05-29-2017 03:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-29-2017 10:39 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Let's say another 6-8 years go by and the MWC/AAC split all of the access bowl slots. What is stopping CFP from elevating the Las Vegas and Houston bowls to CFP status and giving both conferences contract slots? Then the MAC/CUSA/SBC would have the access slot to themselves.

IMO, what would stop the CFP from elevating the LV and Houston bowls to CFP status and giving the AAC and MWC champs auto-berths in each is the complete lack of interest TV would have in funding it.

The current CFP essentially treats the entire G5 as a single Power conference, because the "winner" of the G5, the highest-ranked G5 champ, gets an auto-bid to a CFP bowl just like the champs of all P5 conferences do.

And really, that probably overstates the value TV places on the G5, because clearly the expectation is that among the 12 available slots, in a given year only 1 will go to a G5 while the other 11 go to P5. It surely made TV nervous last year when, for a brief moment after Houston beat Louisville, it was possible that the G5 could put two teams in the CFP bowls (the highest-ranked G5 champ and Houston, had Houston finished in the top 12 but failed to win the AAC).

Put it this way: If the conferences were to go to TV right now and say they wanted to abolish the rule that gives an auto-bid to the highest-ranked G5 champ, leaving the G5 out of the CFP bowls entirely, there's virtually no chance that TV would object, to the contrary they'd probably be willing to kick in more money to make that happen. IOW's, there is a strong element of "welfarism" to the G5 getting a guaranteed spot, it's a sop to the G5 for political reasons, it's not driven by TV demand. It has its roots in the 2004 sabre-rattling of Senator Orrin Hatch, who threatened Congressional action if the lower conferences didn't get something.

So given that TV would prefer not to have any guaranteed G5 spots, what makes you think that in 2024 they'd want three?

There's no evidence G5 value has improved at all, much less to that extent.

Not yet at this point. There are a lot of new programs in FBS that have yet to have a full 6 year recruiting cycle.

I've thrown out a few scenarios. So far the access bowl has been a clean determination Boise in 2014, Houston in 2015, WMU in 2016. Once a few screw jobs happen there will be calls for more access (like two slots).

What would a screw-job look like?

You do realize that the G5 conferences aren't limited to a single NY6 bowl team, right? If last year after beating Louisville, Houston had won out and finished in the top 12, but not won the AAC, then Houston and WMU would have made NY6 bowls.

Agreement only requires on to be taken. If a G5 finishes 4th and makes the playoff there is no requirement for a G5 to be selected for any other slot.

Look, I'm not saying that the G5 have the same access to the NY6 as do the P5. Obviously they don't. But there are multiple paths to getting in, and the G5 access to the most important games, the playoffs, is exactly the same as it is for the P5 teams - be ranked in the top 4. The only formal difference is with the non-playoff NY6 bowls, and as my example indicates, it is possible for two G5 schools to make the NY6.

(05-30-2017 08:10 PM)Artifice Wrote:  While I realize there are those that want 16-32 team major college football, that has to be the most willful marginalization of the Cinderella draw of the NCAA tournament that I have ever read. That took a strong desire to devalue the best part of March Madness (and what the name is meant to describe). Also, that was a near equally ridiculous downplaying of the value of the opening weekend of the tournament, which is one of the three or four most valuable sports properties on the planet. But ignoring those little inconveniences, you have a point(?)

Also, you're arguing for the value of games my proposal doesn't exclude as greater value than those games plus additional games.

It's bad math.

Finally, your argument is for the permanence of the status quo after the changes I proposed, which is not only wrong, it ignores the point of the proposal.

I get it though. As I said, there are loads of people desperate to marginalize every other team other than their own; every conference other than the one they root for.

I was a UT student (who camped out for tix) when Manning was there and when the Vols won the National Championship the next season. I continue to be a Vols fan. I've also been a fan of a startup G5 program. I see the issue from both sides, and I know you're wrong. The course you and others are setting for even SEC programs is one I do not want. The end game is going to cost schools like Tennessee at least one home game every season, and years and years of hopeless 2-10 or 3-9 seasons with no balancing reset switch like the NFL has. Coach churn and fanbase disenchantment and disengagement will soon follow. It's inevitable.

If you are suggesting that I am devaluing the opening weekend of the NCAAT, you couldn't be more wrong. I believe that's one of the best aspects of college sports. What I am devaluing is the opening games of the NCAAT. The ones played on Tuesday-Friday. For the most part, those stink, and they stink because they include teams that really don't belong among the nation's best. They exist to satisfy political correctness.

If I were made Czar for Life of the NCAA, here is what I would do for college football.

I would eliminate the distinction between FBS and FCS within D-I. Instead, all teams would have the same scholarship limits - the ones currently used by the FCS. All games would have to be against other D-I teams, and they would all count toward bowl eligibility, which would require at least 7 wins.

I would sanction a 16 team post season tournament. The participants in that tournament would all be at-large, and would be selected by taking the highest ranked teams using a composite ranking of the AP poll, the Coaches Poll, the Massey Composite rankings and the Sagarin Power rankings. I would impose a limit of four teams per conference in this tournament.

To accommodate this, I would start the season one week earlier (what is now called Week Zero) and do away with all conference championship games. Tournament teams would be seeded in the usual manner (1 vs 16, 2 vs 15 and so on). First and second round games would be hosted by the higher seeded team. There would be four games on the Friday after Thanksgiving, and the second four games the following day. Second round games would all be played the following Saturday.

All twelve first and second round losers would be eligible to play in a bowl game, and the four second round losers would all be guaranteed one of the four New Year's bowls. Other than this one restriction, the Bowls would be free to invite whoever they want, either by contract or informal agreement. Any team eligible for a bowl but not invited may arrange its own post season exhibition against another such team, to be played wherever they choose.

If this arrangement were in effect this year, the playoff brackets would have looked like this:

Round 1 - Friday
#16 Western Michigan @ #1 Alabama
#13 Auburn @ #4 Clemson
#12 Florida State @ #5 Washington
#9 Penn State @ #8 Colorado

Round 1 - Saturday
#15 Florida @ #2 Ohio State
#14 Oklahoma State @ #3 Michigan
#11 Southern Cal @ #6 Wisconsin
#10 Louisville @ #7 Oklahoma

Each participant in the first round would earn one share of the playoff payout, and each participant in the second round would earn an additional share. There would be no additional shares for the four semifinalists. All gate receipts, net of stadium operating expenses officiating crews, etc., would go into the payoff pool, as would TV rights payments for all 15 tournament games (but not any bowl games). Travel expenses for the participants would be paid out of the pool before any other distribution.

That, IMO, is as close to a meritocracy as we could ever hope to see in D-I college footfall.

(05-30-2017 08:10 PM)Artifice Wrote:  While I realize there are those that want 16-32 team major college football, that has to be the most willful marginalization of the Cinderella draw of the NCAA tournament that I have ever read. That took a strong desire to devalue the best part of March Madness (and what the name is meant to describe). Also, that was a near equally ridiculous downplaying of the value of the opening weekend of the tournament, which is one of the three or four most valuable sports properties on the planet. But ignoring those little inconveniences, you have a point(?)

Also, you're arguing for the value of games my proposal doesn't exclude as greater value than those games plus additional games.

It's bad math.

Finally, your argument is for the permanence of the status quo after the changes I proposed, which is not only wrong, it ignores the point of the proposal.

Wow, it's hard to figure out where to start. But OK:

(1) The point about the NCAA tournament swooshed way over your head: The reason the first weekend of the tournament, and the tournament as a whole, is way more valuable than back when minor conferences had the same access as major conferences, is because the expansion of the draw has, in practice, led to many more teams from major conferences participating. Not because it means that more minor-conference teams are. Because the great bulk of those expanded slots go to major conference teams. In the first round of the pre-1975 tourney, there were often plenty of david/goliath games, UCLA vs Weber State and Syracuse vs Penn matchups. But interest was much lower because all the other Powers were out.

Now sure, ideally, fans would want both. We'd all like a big 64-team football playoff that includes everyone, all the major powers plus all the minor conference champs. But obviously, we can't have that in football. A football tourney is going to be much smaller, which necessitates tradeoffs, and given that, fans would much rather exclude the minor conference teams than the major conference teams.

And not just because of pure fan bias. There's actually a rational basis for it: Going 9-3 and finishing 3rd in the B1G is usually more difficult than going 11-1 and winning the Sun Belt. The Sagarin and Massey ratings show that.

(2) Your math is ... disengenuous, in that you keep proclaiming that an expanded playoffs would help the G5 but not hurt the P5, but you haven't explained how. If we have a game with high value (say USC vs Alabama) and then add to it a game with low value (say Western Ohio vs New Mexico), then while total dollars will be higher, *average* dollars, what really matter, will be lower. Because the participation of Western Ohio vs New Mexico will necessitate cutting them in more revenue-wise (if it doesn't, your proposal doesn't produce the 'life blood' you claim the G5 will get), thus diluting the dollars, more mouths to feed. If TV is paying $50m for USC vs Alabama, but values WO vs NM at $1m, instead of $50m divided essentially 2 ways (or 5, for the P5 as a whole), we would have $51m divided 10 ways, equal participation for the G5. That represents a big pay cut for the P5.

You can dress your proposal up all you want, but all it adds up to is a form of welfarism, redistributing money from the P5 to the G5.

To this point, that's all you've offered. You're asking the P5 to give up playoff money to the G5.

(05-31-2017 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-30-2017 09:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-30-2017 05:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-29-2017 04:05 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(05-29-2017 03:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, what would stop the CFP from elevating the LV and Houston bowls to CFP status and giving the AAC and MWC champs auto-berths in each is the complete lack of interest TV would have in funding it.

The current CFP essentially treats the entire G5 as a single Power conference, because the "winner" of the G5, the highest-ranked G5 champ, gets an auto-bid to a CFP bowl just like the champs of all P5 conferences do.

And really, that probably overstates the value TV places on the G5, because clearly the expectation is that among the 12 available slots, in a given year only 1 will go to a G5 while the other 11 go to P5. It surely made TV nervous last year when, for a brief moment after Houston beat Louisville, it was possible that the G5 could put two teams in the CFP bowls (the highest-ranked G5 champ and Houston, had Houston finished in the top 12 but failed to win the AAC).

Put it this way: If the conferences were to go to TV right now and say they wanted to abolish the rule that gives an auto-bid to the highest-ranked G5 champ, leaving the G5 out of the CFP bowls entirely, there's virtually no chance that TV would object, to the contrary they'd probably be willing to kick in more money to make that happen. IOW's, there is a strong element of "welfarism" to the G5 getting a guaranteed spot, it's a sop to the G5 for political reasons, it's not driven by TV demand. It has its roots in the 2004 sabre-rattling of Senator Orrin Hatch, who threatened Congressional action if the lower conferences didn't get something.

So given that TV would prefer not to have any guaranteed G5 spots, what makes you think that in 2024 they'd want three?

There's no evidence G5 value has improved at all, much less to that extent.

Not yet at this point. There are a lot of new programs in FBS that have yet to have a full 6 year recruiting cycle.

I've thrown out a few scenarios. So far the access bowl has been a clean determination Boise in 2014, Houston in 2015, WMU in 2016. Once a few screw jobs happen there will be calls for more access (like two slots).

What would a screw-job look like?

You do realize that the G5 conferences aren't limited to a single NY6 bowl team, right? If last year after beating Louisville, Houston had won out and finished in the top 12, but not won the AAC, then Houston and WMU would have made NY6 bowls.

Agreement only requires on to be taken. If a G5 finishes 4th and makes the playoff there is no requirement for a G5 to be selected for any other slot.

Look, I'm not saying that the G5 have the same access to the NY6 as do the P5. Obviously they don't. But there are multiple paths to getting in, and the G5 access to the most important games, the playoffs, is exactly the same as it is for the P5 teams - be ranked in the top 4. The only formal difference is with the non-playoff NY6 bowls, and as my example indicates, it is possible for two G5 schools to make the NY6.

Hey I'm the guy who likes the CFP because a G5 hitting #4 is more plausible than #2.

But it is also plausible G5's could finish 4 and 5 and only one get to play in the big games or 5 and 6 and only one get in.

(05-31-2017 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Youu can dress your proposal up all you want, but all it adds up to is a form of welfarism, redistributing money from the P5 to the G5.

To this point, that's all you've offered. You're asking the P5 to give up playoff money to the G5.

This is simply not the case and if you can not or refuse to understand the very simple explanation provided then there is no use discussing this further with you. To you, 1+2 < 1. Cannot have a discussion when logic is aborted like that.

(05-31-2017 12:52 PM)Artifice Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Youu can dress your proposal up all you want, but all it adds up to is a form of welfarism, redistributing money from the P5 to the G5.

To this point, that's all you've offered. You're asking the P5 to give up playoff money to the G5.

This is simply not the case and if you can not or refuse to understand the very simple explanation provided then there is no use discussing this further with you. To you, 1+2 < 1. Cannot have a discussion when logic is aborted like that.

Your explanation is simple, all right, simple-minded and badly flawed. The extra games you propose aren't valued as much as the games we currently have, so while yes, overall money goes up, it doesn't necessarily mean it goes up enough to cover the costs of the additional teams participating more in the revenue stream.

And there's every reason to think it wouldn't. Heck, the example you gave to shore up your speculation was the NCAA tournament, and you showed a complete lack of knowledge of how that event has evolved.

So sure, grab your ball, declare a victory nobody but yourself recognizes, and go home, LOL.